scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (01) ◽  
pp. 219-223
Author(s):  
R. Choquet ◽  
C. Daniel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Design Stage ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Electronic Health

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2015. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed on Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) was performed followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was finally organized to conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 579 returned papers published in the past year in the various areas of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) - i) methods supporting clinical research, ii) data sharing and interoperability, iii) re-use of healthcare data for research, iv) patient recruitment and engagement, v) data privacy, security and regulatory issues and vi) policy and perspectives - the full review process selected four best papers. The first selected paper evaluates the capability of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM) to support the representation of case report forms (in both the design stage and with patient level data) during a complete clinical study lifecycle. The second selected paper describes a prototype for secondary use of electronic health records data captured in non-standardized text. The third selected paper presents a privacy preserving electronic health record linkage tool and the last selected paper describes how big data use in US relies on access to health information governed by varying and often misunderstood legal requirements and ethical considerations. Conclusions: A major trend in the 2015 publications is the analysis of observational, “nonexperimental” information and the potential biases and confounding factors hidden in the data that will have to be carefully taken into account to validate new predictive models. In addiction, researchers have to understand complicated and sometimes contradictory legal requirements and to consider ethical obligations in order to balance privacy and promoting discovery.

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2017

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (01) ◽  
pp. 177-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christel Daniel ◽  
Dipak Kalra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Health Records ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Association Studies ◽  
Bias Reduction ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Private Industry ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Electronic Health

Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2017. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH descriptors and free terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 741 returned papers published in 2017 in the various areas of CRI, the full review process selected five best papers. The first best paper reports on the implementation of consent management considering patient preferences for the use of de-identified data of electronic health records for research. The second best paper describes an approach using natural language processing to extract symptoms of severe mental illness from clinical text. The authors of the third best paper describe the challenges and lessons learned when leveraging the EHR4CR platform to support patient inclusion in academic studies in the context of an important collaboration between private industry and public health institutions. The fourth best paper describes a method and an interactive tool for case-crossover analyses of electronic medical records for patient safety. The last best paper proposes a new method for bias reduction in association studies using electronic health records data. Conclusions: Research in the CRI field continues to accelerate and to mature, leading to tools and platforms deployed at national or international scales with encouraging results. Beyond securing these new platforms for exploiting large-scale health data, another major challenge is the limitation of biases related to the use of “real-world” data. Controlling these biases is a prerequisite for the development of learning health systems.

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
pp. 209-211
Author(s):  
C. Daniel ◽  
R. Choquet
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Privacy Breaches

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select the best papers published in 2016. Methods: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 452 papers published in 2016 in the various areas of CRI and returned by the query, the full review process selected four best papers. The authors of the first paper utilized a comprehensive representation of the patient medical record and semi-automatically labeled training sets to create phenotype models via a machine learning process. The second selected paper describes an open source tool chain securely connecting ResearchKit compatible applications (Apps) to the widely-used clinical research infrastructure Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2). The third selected paper describes the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. The fourth selected paper focuses on the evaluation of the risk of privacy breaches in releasing genomics datasets. Conclusions: A major trend in the 2016 publications is the variety of research on “real-world data” - healthcare-generated data, person health data, and patient-reported outcomes -highlighting the opportunities provided by new machine learning techniques as well as new potential risks of privacy breaches.

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
pp. 209-213
Author(s):  
C. Daniel ◽  
R. Choquet
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Privacy Breaches

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select the best papers published in 2016. Methods: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selection of best papers. Results: Among the 452 papers published in 2016 in the various areas of CRI and returned by the query, the full review process selected four best papers. The authors of the first paper utilized a comprehensive representation of the patient medical record and semi-automatically labeled training sets to create phenotype models via a machine learning process. The second selected paper describes an open source tool chain securely connecting ResearchKit compatible applications (Apps) to the widely-used clinical research infrastructure Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2). The third selected paper describes the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. The fourth selected paper focuses on the evaluation of the risk of privacy breaches in releasing genomics datasets. Conclusions: A major trend in the 2016 publications is the variety of research on “real-world data” - healthcare-generated data, person health data, and patient-reported outcomes -highlighting the opportunities provided by new machine learning techniques as well as new potential risks of privacy breaches.

scholarly journals Key Contributions in Clinical Research Informatics

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 233-238
Author(s):  
Christel Daniel ◽  
Ali Bellamine ◽  
Dipak Kalra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Generative Adversarial Networks ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Electronic Health

Summary Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2020. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors and free-text terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. After peer-review ranking, a consensus meeting between two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selected four best papers. Results: Among the 877 papers published in 2020 and returned by the search, there were four best papers selected. The first best paper describes a method for mining temporal sequences from clinical documents to infer disease trajectories and enhancing high-throughput phenotyping. The authors of the second best paper demonstrate that the generation of synthetic Electronic Health Record (EHR) data through Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) could be substantially improved by more appropriate training and evaluation criteria. The third best paper offers an efficient advance on methods to detect adverse drug events by computer-assisting expert reviewers with annotated candidate mentions in clinical documents. The large-scale data quality assessment study reported by the fourth best paper has clinical research informatics implications, in terms of the trustworthiness of inferences made from analysing electronic health records. Conclusions: The most significant research efforts in the CRI field are currently focusing on data science with active research in the development and evaluation of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms based on ever more intensive use of real-world data and especially EHR real or synthetic data. A major lesson that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has already taught the scientific CRI community is that timely international high-quality data-sharing and collaborative data analysis is absolutely vital to inform policy decisions.

scholarly journals Rejection rate and reasons for rejection after peer review: a case study of a Russian economics journal

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Review Reports

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 918 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Full Paper ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Galley Proof

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. Peer review declaration All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind The 2nd International Symposium on Arboriculture in the Tropics: Trees and Human Health (The 2nd ISATrop2021) Editorial team used a double-blind review, where both the reviewer (scientific committee) and author identities were concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Only the editor knows the name of this reviewer and author. The list of Scientific committees has been determined before the symposium takes place and was ratified in the form of a Letter of Assignment. • Conference submission management system: The registration mechanism for the 2nd ISATrop2021 for participants, both non-presenters and oral presenters was carried out via online submission with the form provided on the arboriculture website ( https://arborikultur.ipb.ac.id/registration/ ). Abstracts for presenters are also uploaded when filling out the registration form. Speakers and participants can monitor and communicate with symposium organizers via email [email protected] and WhatsApp with contact person Ulfa Adzkia, S.Hut, M.Si as the symposium secretary (+62 822 6245 4154). Participants who have presented their papers at the 2nd ISATrop2021 on 21-22 June 2021, can then submit full papers via email [email protected] to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team. • Number of submissions received: 62 • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85.48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 27 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: - Full papers that have been received by the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team via email [email protected] from the participants have been going through a peer review mechanism as follows: 1. The Editor Team allocates 1-3 papers to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Scientific Committees (reviewers). 2. Each full paper along with the review form was sent to each reviewer via email [email protected]. 3. The review and revision process were continued until the full paper is declared “Accepted by No Revision” by the reviewer. 4. Full Paper that has been Accepted by Revision, then processed for plagiarism checking by TURNITIN, proofread checking by the proofreader team, and layout checking by the layout team. 5. While waiting for the proof read and layout check results, the author was asked to submit a “Statement of Originality form” via email. The form template was provided by the editor team. 6. The results of the proofread and layout in the form of “Galley Proof Draft” were then sent back to the author via email. 7. Galley Proof Draft that has been checked and corrected by the author, then sent back to the editor team via email. 8. The final layout team then rechecks the full paper to ensure that the format is in accordance with the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science format. • Contact person for queries: Name : Fifi Gus Dwiyanti Affiliation: Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics and Electronic Health Record Data

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 215-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Horvath ◽  
S. A. Rusincovitch ◽  
R. L. Richesson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Health Record ◽  
Healthcare Operations ◽  
Electronic Health Record Data ◽  
Pragmatic Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics ◽  
Electronic Health ◽  
The Impact

Summary Objectives: The goal of this survey is to discuss the impact of the growing availability of electronic health record (EHR) data on the evolving field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI), which is the union of biomedical research and informatics. Results: Major challenges for the use of EHR-derived data for research include the lack of standard methods for ensuring that data quality, completeness, and provenance are sufficient to assess the appropriateness of its use for research. Areas that need continued emphasis include methods for integrating data from heterogeneous sources, guidelines (including explicit phenotype definitions) for using these data in both pragmatic clinical trials and observational investigations, strong data governance to better understand and control quality of enterprise data, and promotion of national standards for representing and using clinical data. Conclusions: The use of EHR data has become a priority in CRI. Awareness of underlying clinical data collection processes will be essential in order to leverage these data for clinical research and patient care, and will require multi-disciplinary teams representing clinical research, informatics, and healthcare operations. Considerations for the use of EHR data provide a starting point for practical applications and a CRI research agenda, which will be facilitated by CRI’s key role in the infrastructure of a learning healthcare system.

scholarly journals Letter from the Editors

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetyana L. Vasylyeva
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Mechanisms Of Development ◽  
The Impact

Since it was established in 2014, the International Journal of Integrative Pediatrics and Environmental Medicine (IJIPEM) has strongly adhered to publishing ethics, followed a double-blind review process, and published high-quality papers. Our outstanding linguistic service has assisted many grateful authors for whom English is a second language. Last year was a hard year for everyone, but particularly for the first-line medical care providers. We have given priority to SARS-CoV-2-related manuscripts and published them for free, thereby contributing to our universal knowledge of this new disease. One of the most interesting papers was "Pregnancy and COVID-19, a brief review", one of the first articles published on the topic. Another paper, "The new face of Medicine – care flow strategies developed during COVID" by Dr. Sharon Jacob, addressed how to adjust clinic schedules during this unexpected Global disaster. We also published rare and interesting cases related to the journal's scope, which is focused on the interactions between children and their physical and psychological environment. We want to remind you that the journal topics center on modifiable factors, such as environmental pollution, child-parent relationships, social circumstances, quality of life of the sick child, ill-child school performance, mental health, and sensitivity to environmental factors. Topics concerning integrating conventional pediatrics with complementary and alternative medicine for children and research about environmental impacts on cellular and molecular mechanisms of development are of great interest. We will continue giving priority to manuscripts related to the impact of SARS-CoV-2. We are hopeful that the new year will be very fruitful for our goal of increased scientific knowledge and distribution of these discoveries. We are looking forward to reading, reviewing, and publishing your work. We will also see that it is preserved and recorded with DOI links and advertised widely. Manuscripts funded by NIH or their partners will be indexed as PubMed selected citations. We hope you will enjoy working with our editorial team. If you are reading this letter, you may well already be familiar with IIPEM. If you are interested in working with us, please, register as an author on the web at https://ijipem.com/index.php/ijipem/login. We will put our talents to work to make your paper readable and visible.

scholarly journals Clinical Research Informatics

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (01) ◽  
pp. 203-207
Author(s):  
Christel Daniel ◽  
Dipak Kalra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Real World ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Common Data Model ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics

Objectives: To summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2019. Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH descriptors and free-text terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. After peer-review ranking, a consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selected three best papers. Results: Among the 517 papers, published in 2019, returned by the search, that were in the scope of the various areas of CRI, the full review process selected three best papers. The first best paper describes the use of a homomorphic encryption technique to enable federated analysis of real-world data while complying more easily with data protection requirements. The authors of the second best paper demonstrate the evidence value of federated data networks reporting a large real world data study related to the first line treatment for hypertension. The third best paper reports the migration of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system database to the OMOP common data model. This work opens the combined analysis of both spontaneous reporting system and electronic health record (EHR) data for pharmacovigilance. Conclusions: The most significant research efforts in the CRI field are currently focusing on real world evidence generation and especially the reuse of EHR data. With the progress achieved this year in the areas of phenotyping, data integration, semantic interoperability, and data quality assessment, real world data is becoming more accessible and reusable. High quality data sets are key assets not only for large scale observational studies or for changing the way clinical trials are conducted but also for developing or evaluating artificial intelligence algorithms guiding clinical decision for more personalized care. And lastly, security and confidentiality, ethical and regulatory issues, and more generally speaking data governance are still active research areas this year.

scholarly journals Information Technology for Clinical, Translational and Comparative Effectiveness Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 178-182
Author(s):  
R. Choquet ◽  
C. Daniel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Health Care Organizations ◽  
Patient Recruitment ◽  
Formal Representation ◽  
Data Interoperability ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Bibliographic Search ◽  
Clinical Research Informatics

Summary Objectives: To select and summarize key constributions to current research and to select best papers published in 2014 in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI).Method: A bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed on Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) was performed followed by a double-blind literature review. Results: The review process yielded four papers, illustrating various aspects of current research efforts done in the area of CRI. The first paper exemplifies the process of developping a domain ontology for integrating structured, unstructured, and signal data into a coherent structure for patient care as well as clinical research. In the second paper, the authors analysed in five sites’ hospital information system environments in Germany the possibility of implementing a patient recruitment process and provided recommendations for the development of dedicated patient recruitment modules. The third paper describes the IMI EHR4CR project which developed an instance of a platform, providing communication, security and semantic interoperability services to the eleven participating hospitals and ten pharmaceutical companies located in seven European countries. The last paper describes the relation between health status severity and the availability of data in EHR systems. They demonstrate that it introduces a biasis in patient selection for clinical research. Conclusions: Distributed research networks are growing in importance for clinical research and population health surveillance and current research demonstartes that different projects and initiatives could be well placed to deliver international scale solutions to enable the reuse of hospital EHR data to support clinical research studies. Selected articles demonstrate the potential of formal representation of multimodal and multi-level data in supporting data interoperability across clinical research and care domains. With the development of pragmatic research, designed with input from health systems and producing evidence that can be readily used to improve care, a key issue for “learning health care organizations” is to systematically assess the quality of their data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document